Appropriate Technology
Strategies
for Rural Water Development
After the Decade

Presented at the 16th Annual Third World Conference
April 5-7, 1990, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Presented at Water and Wastewater Conference
April 24-27, 1990. Barcelona, Spain

by Cliff Missen, MA
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
U.S.A.

Water procurement in lesser-developed countries has been brought to the forefront
during the last ten years as the United Nations declared 1981 through 1990 as the
International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade. In the months that this paper was
being prepared and presented, the UN's International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade
drew to a close, falling far short of its goal of "clean water for all by 1990."
According to United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and World Health Organization (WHO)
officials, more than half of those living in the developing world continue to live without
access to potable water.1

While the Decade has produced a measurable increase in urban access to potable water
world wide, as well as a much heralded heightened institutional awareness of the role that
water plays in the health and development of a country,2
success in the development of rural water systems has proved remarkably elusive.

In 1980, at the start of the Decade, 72% of those in urban areas of the Third World had
access to potable water, while only 32% of those in the rural areas had such access.3 During the first five years of the Decade, these figures advanced
to 77% and 36% respectively. Commendable growth when one considers the task of simply
keeping up with steep population increases during a period of worldwide economic slow
down, but there still exists a vast disparity between services provided to the rural and
urban sectors.

How are these numbers significant? What social, economic, and political factors bring
about this inequity? Why is it that rural water development seems so particularly
difficult to accomplish?

This paper will examining the statistics to show that the majority of Third World
inhabitants live in the rural areas and have yet to be served with clean water--despite
the fact that the rural areas harbor the majority of water-related disease and suffering.
The literature will be reviewed to try to account for the reasons for the historical and
pervasive urban bias. Finally, it will be proposed that the use, and disregard, of certain
technologies have served to amplify this rural/urban gulf. It will be argued that the
Decade has failed in the rural areas of the least developed countries precisely because of
the institutional inability on the part of government and international agencies to
identify and promote small-scale appropriate technologies for water procurement.

Two notes on procedure: since this is a short paper and time is at a premium, the scope
of the statistical research will be narrowed to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of
Africa, which, it becomes clear after perusing the literature, provide a fairly
well-rounded sample of the state of water development in other LDCs. Secondly, statistics
having to do with the water decade are notoriously dubious. The numbers fluctuate wildly
from one source to another; especially comparing country-reported and World Health
Organization gathered statistics. For continuity's sake, WHO figures will be cited as much
as possible. It should also be recognized that many think that water supply coverage
statistics, no matter the source, are overly optimistic.4Many critics point out that "access" to a water source
may only mean that one lives within a kilometer of a standpipe or pump, with no measure as
to the practical accessibility of such water sources.5

This paper's first task is rather straightforward--to demonstrate that the disparity
between the urban and rural sectors is more than mysterious percentage notations. Here it
was necessary to combine population statistics (numbers of people) with potable water
coverage figures (percentages) to ascertain the actual amount of human beings who did not
have access to clean water by 1985. (Table 1)

COUNTRY

TOTAL
POPULATION

URBAN
POP.

URBAN
SERVED

RURAL
SERVED

RURAL
UNSERVED

(x1000)

%

%

%

(X1000)

Benin

4200

35%

79%

35%

1788

Botswana

1157

20%

100%

33%

620

Burkina Faso

8100

8%

50%

26%

5514

Burundi

4800

2%

33%

22%

3669

Cape Verde

348

5%

99%

21%

261

Central African Rep.

2703

45%

24%

5%

1412

Chad

5100

27%

27%

30%

2606

Comoros

472

25%

99%

52%

170

Equatorial Guinea

410

59%

47%

47%

89

Ethiopia

43850

15%

93%

42%

21618

Gambia

789

20%

100%

33%

423

Guinea

6380

22%

62%

15%

4255

Guinea-Bissau

925

27%

19%

22%

527

Lesotho

1628

17%

37%

14%

1162

Malawi

7400

5%

66%

49%

3585

Mali

7600

20%

48%

17%

5046

Mauritania

1864

31%

80%

16%

1080

Niger

6600

15%

48%

34%

3703

Rwanda

6200

5%

55%

60%

2356

Sierra Leone

3849

25%

86%

20%

2309

Somalia

5500

34%

57%

20%

2904

Sudan

22600

21%

90%

20%

14283

Togo

3100

23%

68%

26%

1766

Uganda

15200

7%

45%

12%

12440

United Rep. of Tanzania

23000

14%

80%

38%

12264

TOTALS (x1000)

183775

30425

21738

47498

105852

PERCENTAGES

100%

17%

71%

31%

58%
of total
population

Sources: Second UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries. Geneva, May 1989World Development Report The World Bank. Oxford University Press. New York, 1988World Health Statistics Annual 1986 World Health Organization. Geneva, 1986

Roughly speaking, two-thirds of the total population of the African LDCs do not have
access to a potable water supply. (Graph 1)

Much more striking is that 83% of the population of the selected African LDCs, or 153
million persons, reside in the rural areas and roughly a third of these, 47 million have
access to a clean water source while 105 million go without. On the other hand, 17% of the
populace, or 30 million persons, are urban dwellers and over two-thirds of them are served
with potable water while 29%, or 8.6 million, are not. (Graph 2)

So, percentage-wise rural water supply is seriously lagging behind the urban sector.
(31% vs. 71%) Yet, numerically, twice as many persons in the rural sector have access to
potable water. (47 million vs. 21 million.) However, there remains thirteen times more
rural than urban residents who continue to exist without clean water. (105 million vs. 8
million.)

(Worldwide, 1.2 billion are without access to an adequate water supply and the
urban/rural numerical disparity is reversed: of those served with water, 55% are urban and
45% rural.6)

Finally, one must consider the fact that, in the first five years of the Decade, an
estimated 88% of the funds earmarked for decade activities were spent in the cities.7

Why the emphasis on the cities when the mass of the need is in the rural areas? Or
perhaps more pertinent: why not develop the rural areas?

Politically, the urban folks have clout. With the seat of power and the
political/economic elites typically in the urban areas, it is natural that what monies are
available are spent in the urban areas. But, beside their own comfort, urban planners and
decision makers have other formidable pressures to improve urban water services.

The effects of urban overcrowding and the threat of outbreaks of disease make water
development an imperative in the cities of the Third World.8
As WHO points out:

In urban areas, good water supply is essential to the existence of a city and to
protect public health. There is usually no alternative to a public water system. In rural
areas, the justification becomes much more tenuous: The threat of epidemic due to
waterborne diseases lessens as population density decreases...9

The urban population, as well as the urban industrial base, is more likely to
collectively pay for a waterworks (or at least offset the cost), whereas small, spatially
separated villages are less able.

A country can realize significant economies of scale serving more persons from the same
water source. With some systems, per capita spending in the urban sector is almost half
the cost in the rural areas.10

Urban water developments have been shown to improve overall economic development. The
long-term effects of a healthier urban population, coupled with the propensity for such
public services to attract and encourage industries, has greater effect on a country's
productivity.11

Urban migration considerations may or may not influence water resources development
planning since there are two possible outcomes that depend entirely on other factors.
Development of rural water systems, especially in the designated growth poles, may
actually encourage rural resident to stay put, alleviating pressures on the primary city.
However, there is always the possibility that improving the health of those in an
agricultural settings could increase the supply of healthy labor beyond the land's
carrying capacity, forcing the over-farming of marginal lands and causing more rural to
urban migration.12

Planning water systems for the urban areas may be socially and politically easier.
First, there is not as much need for user input. Instead of having to work with every
consortium of villagers to decide who, when, where, and how a system is to be built, city
planning is much more central. Urban dwellers are most often in a take-it-or-leave-it
situation and their only input to the process is the payment of their water bill.

Most importantly, water development in the urban areas is technically easier since the
water systems can be centrally constructed and operated--mirroring the technology already
used by the more developed countries and allowing the use of imported state-of-the-art
equipment and off-the-shelf technologies.

Because of this, most urban water development schemes can seem more attractive to
bilateral aid agencies who look to contribute their country's products and experts. (This
"tied aid" has been cited as a major impediment to progress by several countries
and institutions during the first half of the Decade.)13

The resulting complex water supply structures involves one or more high-volume water
sources and highly trained technicians able to centrally treat and provide water to a
large number of urban dwellers served through static piping systems of simple standpipes
or in home plumbing which, once installed, are relatively maintenance free.

The urban areas are better able than their rural counterparts to attract and support
the expertise to control the water distribution systems and maintain quality controls.
Where a small cadre of technicians is all that is required to maintain urban water
supplies, each village in the rural areas, for social, political, and geographical
reasons, may need to have a trained technician available to repair the well or treat the
water.

Rural areas simply pose more challenging problems to the modern water development
planner. The settlements in the rural sector are generally sparsely populated and widely
distributed. Water sources in rural areas are typically small-scale, serving a few hundred
people and their livestock (needing only to meet immediate consumption needs). This means
that numerous water sources need to be developed to provide for fewer individuals and, if
we follow the current trend of using modern machinery and methods, this means that more
costly and complex equipment is required to build wells in areas where the prerequisite
finances, training and skills are most lacking.

Of course, on the other hand, there are ample reasons to develop the water resources in
the rural areas. The improvement of the human condition being the primary, (WHO estimates
that 80% of death and disease in Africa can be linked to water-related diseases) but, at
least on paper, and especially on the ledger sheet, rural water development looks like a
losing proposition.

There is a major caveat here. Most of the factors that make rural water development so
expensive are directly related to the technology used to develop a water source. How does
a crew of four highly trained technicians with a $500,000 drilling rig, using expensive
drilling muds, welding equipment, and precious fuels, make an honest buck in a village
where the average income of the 150 or so agriculturalist peasants is about $100 a year?

Given the high cost of the equipment and technicians, and considering the machinery
depreciates rapidly while the salaries add up, the well making process is rushed as much
as possible, meaning that less time is available for village involvement. Yet village
involvement in the planning and construction process is precisely what has been identified
as the key to insuring long-term use and maintenance in rural areas.14
As well, many countries have complained that the use of foreign equipment
accompanied by foreign technicians reduces the pool of trained and experienced national
engineers, exacerbating the long-term manpower shortage problems that virtually every
Third World country is experiencing.15

Sadly, scores of countries, whose rural populations employ the simplest traditional
practices in their agriculture and dwellings, have adopted an official policy of using
modern imported drilling machinery to make wells in the rural villages (usually under the
aegis of foreign experts and international monetary assistance).

Many in the field assert that rural water development need not be so costly. They
stress that the quality of rural service does not necessarily need to match that in the
urban sector: the protection of current water sources, the treatment of a readily
available water, small-scale water catchment devices, the provision of a few wells with
handpumps, the development of a local springs or a small earthen dam could suffice to
produce marked changes in the quality of a given community's water supply.

Rural dwellers typically do not use as much water as their urban counterparts,
especially if they have to collect their water from a common source16,
and are more likely to contribute free labor to the water source's construction. Taken
together, the preceding elements have the result of driving down the construction costs to
the point where the urban sector's economy of scale is overcome.17

So if less expensive simple technology is the key to providing wholesale, inexpensive,
community-controlled, development-inducing, health-improving, locally repairable water
systems, what's the catch?

Ironically, the years in which the Decade has taken place were also those years wherein
the advocates for smaller, simpler, more technologically appropriate development have
found their voice. Many have particularly addressed the need for small-scale water
development strategies, yet there are few examples of widely adopted successful projects
or technologies.18

Those commonly cited appropriate technology success stories usually involve recipient
participation in the construction of water delivery systems (pipelines), which are
accessory to an already developed water source, or rainwater catchment structures and
dams, which are only applicable in a handful of areas and bring an entire new set of water
quality complications.

Another oft-cited example of an appropriate technology spawned by the Decade is the
Village Level Operation and Maintenance (VLOM) handpump. The VLOM handpumps (there are
many designs) are built to be sturdy enough to take continual use by hundreds of users
while delivering an adequate flow of water. They are designed to be easily and locally
repairable, with as few spare parts as possible. While the $500 to $1000 VLOM handpump is
a striking success, the pump is simply an accessory to the water source.

The fact remains that, when applying the modern technology model, the most expensive
part of a rural community well (the most commonly constructed water source), is the hole
in the ground--not the accessories and attachments. The expense of developing a water
source from the underground aquifer, the equipment and personnel costs as well as the
planning, shipping, transport and administrative costs, far outweigh the cumulative outlay
for well linings, concrete, and pumps.19

Despite all the rhetoric surrounding the Decade, there are still few examples of new
appropriate technologies that can be used to create new water sources. Some manufacturers
in the developed world have devised newer, smaller drilling rigs for Third World use, but
these are usually miniature replicas of their larger, highly complex cousins that still
can cost $50,000 and upwards. The net effect in many countries is a scenario whereby the
government and/or assistance agency applies the latest "all-singing,
all-dancing" (as one field technician put it) truck mounted technology to the task of
making a well, and then defers to the issues of appropriate technologies when considering
the well pumps and maintenance.

A survey of African LDCs, reveals that most countries report their well making
resources to be large, modern, western produced equipment--in various states of disrepair.
(Table 2.)

SOURCES:Ground Water in North and West Africa UN
Department of Technical Co-operation for Development and Economic Commission for Africa.
Natural Resources/Water Series No.18 New York. 1988

Various country development plans.

Clearly more in-depth research could be done, but this quick assessment of African
LDC's well making inventories plainly shows a bias towards imported large-scale mechanical
drilling rigs. Of the ten countries reviewed, six reported major problems keeping their
machinery in working condition. Most declared that water resource development consumed
inordinate amounts of the country's foreign exchange for the importation of tools and
spare parts. Many have seen their equipment idled for years between infusions of funds and
spare parts from international donors. And yet others have found it difficult to retain
trained national professionals when the machinery they are supposed to operate is in
constant disrepair.20

Only two of the ten countries surveyed claimed well digging tools as resources,
although practically all the countries have local contractors and PVOs who use this
technique. One of the countries had plans to expand or supplement their small-scale well
production while none planned to research and develop more appropriate water well making
technologies.

Worldwide, only a handful of developing countries (China, India, Pakistan most notably)
include traditional and simple well making technologies as a part of their national
development plan.

Today simple well making technologies exist, some dating back over 3000 years21, which are economically and technically suitable for most
rural areas' geology. They share the common traits of being inexpensive, labor intensive,
made from local materials, and moderately efficient. They do not require the spending of
foreign currency and have the added benefit of employing local labor.

By and large, there are only a few ways to make holes in the ground outside of the
modern drilling machines. But these methods have proved moderately effective for thousands
of years without the benefit of modern technology and could possibly be rendered more
effective with additional research and the application of the latest alloys, cheap
plastics, and commonly available materials.

Of course, the techniques to be used depend entirely on the geologic and geographic
conditions of any given area, but there are simple technologies that cover most
circumstances.

In alluvial fills and sandy soils, there is the sludger method that has been widely
used in Pakistan and India. This involves a pipe that is lifted and dropped in a hole
filled with water. The pipe chops the earth at the bottom of the hole and sucks the
cuttings out through the top.

Augers can be used in a number of sedimentary soils for shallow wells. These are large
corkscrew-like devices that can be built and maintained by local blacksmiths or
craftspersons.22

In stable soils with shallow aquifers, the time-honored tradition of well digging
remains a viable option. Its detractors often cite the dug well's inability to penetrate
deep into the aquifer and the difficulty in protecting the subsequent water supply. But
application of newer, yet simpler technologies to extend the well, as well as the
application of smaller well linings, backfilling, and handpumps can lend new life to this
aged technique.

Simple hand powered percussion drills have been around for thousands of years.
Developed by the Chinese in 1100bc. and used to drill the first deep wells in Europe and
America, they are the precursors to today's larger drilling rigs. Time consuming and labor
oriented (a 1923 brine well took four years to penetrate over 4,000 feet using pliable
bamboo strips23), percussion drills come in various sizes
and shapes and can be adapted to most conditions.

Contrary to popular belief, not every water source needs a handpump (although if the
village can afford the $500+ initial cost and yearly upkeep, the chances of the water
supply becoming contaminated are significantly lessened). Neither is it true that
boreholes require handpumps. Large diameter well casings of steel, concrete, or plastic
leave plenty of room for narrow buckets. Open wells can be protected by enclosed
extraction designs and supplied with dedicated ropes and buckets to prevent surface
contaminants from being introduced to the well.

These are just some of the known and practical water well making schemes available.
Some techniques are waiting to be rediscovered while others may have yet to be invented.
However, until concentrated and funded efforts are made to identify the possible water
well development technologies that incorporate indigenous third world skills and
materials, dependence on foreign technology and expertise will be the rule. There is
little indication that such technologies are currently being developed, but there are a
few examples where countries have used the older technologies with success.24

Let's fantasize for just a moment and consider what the water development scene could
look like when a country has a variety of well making technologies available to it. Larger
modern machines could be used to drill wells in urban and medium sized towns where the
size of the population and the local economy made such expenditures feasible, while
smaller pickup-truck mounted rigs -- developed and standardized by the government and
operated by private contractors -- served the larger and accessible villages who could
afford a moderately priced system. The government could offer training and the loan of
equipment (some of the hand powered designs cost as little as $600 per outfit and can be
used repeatedly) to villages or petty contractors who could then, on their own schedule
and with their own funds, produce locally appropriate water sources.

It could certainly be that, within such a scheme, government extension workers could
work through local communication channels to create interest in developing new water
sources. Since there would be no time constraints imposed by idled machinery, the depth of
the local understanding and commitment could be improved. The all-important issues of
site-selection, social impacts, future maintenance, and local contribution to the building
of the water source could be raised and concluded on a schedule more amenable to the
villagers.

The government could then be in the role to assist in providing the technical,
geologic, and instructive inputs while expecting that each village be responsible to
design and develop their own water source, with penalties assessed for non-compliance. (A
true carrot-and-stick approach.)

Appropriate technologies for water procurement have their drawbacks: some older well
designs, especially involving horizontal underground tunnels, are inherently unsafe to
construct; some types of water sources, like open hand-dug wells and surface storage, are
difficult to protect from contamination; and, in many cases, the appropriate technologies
promoted here are simply not "sexy" enough -- the recipients prefer the modern
mechanical methods.

Rural resistance to "second hand technology" is not uncommon. In some areas,
rural residents have proved to not be appreciative of technologies (windmills, handpumps,
etc.) that do not represent the cutting edge.25 While
conducting a water project in Liberia, this author found people willing to wait a mythical
"few years" (which could easily stretch into a lifetime) for the promise of an
international donor's fully-funded truck-drilled well rather than invest a small amount of
time and money into an immediate hand drilled/dug well.

Finally, since appropriate rural water systems call for smaller-scale technologies
which are no longer used in the so-called developed world, donors, especially those
required to spend their development dollars at home, may be pressured into promoting those
projects which best suit their modern technology. This would understandably leave them
less than enthusiastic about participating in the research and development of locally
produced techniques.

In summary, this paper has demonstrated that there continues to be a potent urban bias
in regards to the spending of water supply development funds. The myriad of incentives and
pressures which influence the decisions of national planners have been surveyed and it
appears that some of the most powerful arguments in favor of urban water development are
economic: the returns are greater and the costs can be shared.

However, it has been shown that, to develop new water sources, many countries rely
solely on expensive imported well making technologies that require highly trained
personnel and consume costly fuels and materials. These technologies, by their very
nature, prohibit broad diffusion of water well making tools and skills--severely limiting
the number of new water sources that can be made and restricting the time frame allowed to
develop a new source. (Thereby reducing user participation and, subsequently, the chances
that the consumers will play an enthusiastic part in the well use and maintenance.)

It has been argued that rural water development need not be so costly and that many
steps--the inclusion of rural labor, the improvement of current water sources, the
downscaling of quality/quantity expectations and physical plants--could reduce the per
capita water supply costs to a much more locally manageable level.

The strategy that shows the most promise is the development and promotion of simple and
appropriate water well making technologies. These history-proven techniques are
inexpensive, easily distributed, locally manufactured, and do not restrict the community's
ability to conduct the all-too-necessary social and political rituals that enhance a water
source's success.

To be most effective, these techniques could stand additional research and development
to enhance their capabilities and incorporate modern materials and devices. This is where
it is suggested that countries and development agencies alike should be focusing their
energies in the next "decade."

But herein lies a twist: in this era of increasing "tied aid", what
international donors would be willing to help fund projects to bolster a Third World
country's independence from imported machinery?

Yet, until such techniques are identified and advanced, the prospects of full coverage
of safe water supplies in the rural areas of the Third World will continue to be mired in
the cost-conscious and technology-bound bog that makes up the bulk of today's water
development planning.